Re: [Core] new definition of safeness

I also finished the definition of strong safeness:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Strong_Safeness

please have a look.

Jos

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> It turns out that the earlier definition of safeness I contrived is not
> very extensible.  And as you may have noticed, it's not all that easy to
> understand.  Also, it precluded the use of "output" variables of
> external predicates to be used as inputs for other externals.
> So, I came up with a new definition that addresses these issues:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness
> 
> Please have a look.  The new definition uses a kind of normalization to
> deal with disjunction and defines the notion of equivalence classes for
> variables to deal with equality.
> So, I needed some additional preliminary definitions, but the definition
> of safeness itself is more straightforward.
> 
> I will now work on the extension with strong safeness, which should not
> be too hard.
> 
> 
> Jos

-- 
+43 1 58801 18470        debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Many would be cowards if they had courage
enough.
  - Thomas Fuller